Reference standards
Gold Standard, Verra, Puro.earth, ISO 14064-2, Label Bas-Carbone
Gold Standard and Verra dominate internationally. Puro.earth covers technology removals. ISO 14064-2 provides a methodological frame. Label Bas-Carbone anchors French projects.
A credit only has value through the standard that certifies it. Here are the five main frameworks and their use cases.
Gold Standard and Verra: the two international heavyweights of the voluntary market.
Puro.earth: the reference for technology removals (biochar, DAC, BECCS).
Label Bas-Carbone: the national framework to anchor a French impact chain.
Synthetic comparison
| Standard | Project type | Geography | Use case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gold Standard | Nature-based + co-benefits | Global | International buyers |
| Verra (VCS) | All typologies | Global | Largest market volume |
| Puro.earth | Technology removals | Global | Biochar, DAC, BECCS |
| ISO 14064-2 | Methodological frame | Global | Corporate reporting, projects outside GS |
| Label Bas-Carbone | French domestic | France | French buyers, local authorities |
Why a standard matters
A carbon credit is not an inherently credible asset: its value depends on the standard certifying it. A serious standard does three things. It publishes a robust methodology defining how reductions or removals are quantified. It accredits independent auditors that verify volumes. It maintains a public registry where each credit is traceable down to retirement. Without this methodology + audit + registry triad, a credit has no defensible value before a statutory auditor or an NGO. Choosing the standard is therefore the first integrity filter.
Gold Standard: methodological rigour and co-benefits
Founded in 2003 by WWF and an NGO consortium, Gold Standard is considered one of the rigorous standards on the voluntary market. Its five-step process (Project Design Document, third-party validation, monitoring, verification, issuance) is public and structured. The Safeguarding Principles cover human rights, biodiversity, local communities, making it particularly suited to nature-based projects with a social component. Several Gold Standard methodologies are ICVCM CCP-approved (rice methane, concrete carbonation). For soil carbon, the SOC 402.x methodology covers regenerative agriculture and is not yet CCP-approved (progressive assessment). Public registry: registry.goldstandard.org.
Verra (VCS): a considerable global volume
The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), managed by the NGO Verra, is the programme with a considerable global volume on the voluntary market. Methodological diversity is strong: forests (REDD+), agriculture (VM0042 v2.2 recently CCP-approved for Improved Land Management), renewables, waste, technology removals. Verra went through turbulence in 2023-2024 with the controversy over the integrity of some REDD+ projects (notably those certified under the older VM0009 methodology). The new VM0048 deforestation methodology was designed to address these criticisms. For buyers, checking the methodology used and its potential CCP-approved status is now essential. Registry: registry.verra.org.
Puro.earth: the technology removals benchmark
Puro.earth, acquired by Nasdaq in 2021, positioned itself specifically on durable technology removals: industrial biochar, Direct Air Capture (DAC), BECCS, concrete carbonation. Its standard requires long permanence (typically 100 years minimum) and clearly verifiable, distinguishing it from more generalist standards. CO₂ Removal Certificates (CORCs) are issued on a dedicated public registry. For buyers wanting a technology share in their portfolio, in particular to meet SBTi removals requirements, Puro is today the reference registry. Several large companies (Microsoft, Stripe, Shopify) source their technology removals primarily through Puro.
ISO 14064-2: the transversal methodological frame
ISO 14064-2 is an international standard published by the International Organization for Standardization. It defines requirements for quantifying, monitoring and reporting GHG reductions or removals at the project level, without prescribing a particular sector methodology. It is not a complete programme: no integrated registry, no buffer-pool style mutualisation, no central governance. It is a frame that other operators can apply by pairing it with a third-party registry. Strength: geographic neutrality and international recognition by statutory auditors (DNV, TÜV, Bureau Veritas, AFNOR Certification). Often used for French agricultural projects outside the Gold Standard window, in combination with an independent registry providing traceability.
Label Bas-Carbone: the French anchor
Created in 2018 by the French Ministry for Ecological Transition and operationally managed by DGEC, Label Bas-Carbone is the national French framework for domestic carbon finance. Several methods have been approved by decree: for agriculture, CarbonAgri (cattle), Grandes Cultures (cereals and oilseeds), Hedges, Forest Plantings. Each method defines its baseline, MRV protocol, commitment durations (typically 5 years for agriculture, 30 for forestry) and verification requirements. Traceability is ensured by publishing projects on the official website. LBC remains more flexible than Gold Standard on sampling frequency and buffer pool, making it less recognised for international BVCM, but perfectly suited to a French buyer who wants to value a territorial narrative.
Quality signals to check
A few practical signals to triage standards and methodologies. First, the public registry: a programme without public credit registration does not allow the traceability needed for CSRD reporting. Second, methodology freshness: older methodologies (across typologies) may have been replaced by revised, more rigorous versions, always check the version used by the project. Third, independent governance: a standard without clear independent governance bodies deserves scrutiny before purchase. Fourth, ICVCM status: the question 'is this methodology CCP-approved or under assessment?' gives a strong quality benchmark. CCP assessment is progressive, so a methodology not yet approved is not disqualified, that is a nuance to integrate.
Combining standards according to your strategy
Three combination logics emerge in practice. For an international group with BVCM reporting: majority Gold Standard + Verra for methodological rigour and international recognition, minority Puro.earth for the technology-removal share. For a French buyer prioritising territorial anchoring: majority Label Bas-Carbone + ISO 14064-2 for domestic projects, complemented by Gold Standard for the international portions of the portfolio. For an SME with a contained budget: start with one recognised standard (GS or Verra), one project, and document rigorously before expanding. In all cases, aim at CCP-approved methodologies as soon as they exist, and keep the evidence file for reporting.
A standard is a filter, not an absolute guarantee. Above it, the ICVCM assesses methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles: an extra quality benchmark to aim for.
Frequently asked questions
Ready to take action?
Explore buyer supportPhotographs: Unsplash